Hartford Court Bars Imbalance In the Schools

By GEORGE JUDSON

Published: July 10, 1996

HARTFORD, July 9—
Connecticut's Supreme Court ruled today that the racial segregation in Hartford's public schools is unconstitutional, and called on the General Assembly to remedy the disparity between suburban schools and those of the city, which serve black and Hispanic students almost exclusively.

The ruling that segregated schools are unconstitutional, regardless of the cause, was the first by a state high court since California's ordered the desegregation of Los Angeles schools in 1975. When the California Constitution was amended to bar the busing of students a few years later, it largely ended national efforts to combat de facto segregation in inner-city schools.

While Connecticut's ruling today gives new life to the fight against such segregation, it comes as recent United States Supreme Court rulings have barred governments from setting racial goals, except to remedy intentional discrimination, which the Connecticut court ruled was not in evidence in this case.

That means Connecticut's efforts to comply with the court's order could face a challenge in Federal courts.

Gov. John G. Rowland and Attorney General Richard Blumenthal pledged to act as quickly as possible to comply with the ruling, but added that they would oppose forced busing. The ruling struck down the state's school-districting law as it has been applied to Hartford and its suburbs, but Mr. Rowland and Mr. Blumenthal said it was unclear whether other cities, like Bridgeport and New Haven, would be affected. Three dissenting judges complained, however, that the ruling struck down the state's school-districting law in its entirety.

"We have had our day in court," Governor Rowland said. "The court has ruled. And we must abide by the decision."

But, he said: "It has taken seven years for this case to make its way through the courts. The problem of school segregation in our urban areas is a very complicated problem with deep-running social and economic causes. I do not expect any quick answers and I cannot predict what the remedies will be."

Mr. Rowland said he expected that some legislators would propose a constitutional amendment eliminating the basis for the court's 4-to-3 decision, particularly its unusual clause that prohibits not only racial discrimination, but also segregation.

But several legislative leaders said their first response would be to spur voluntary integration efforts, like regional magnet schools, which are already under way in Hartford and other cities under a 1994 state law prompted by the Hartford suit, which is known as Sheff v. O'Neill.

"I don't like amending the Constitution if I can avoid it," Senator Adela M. Eads, the ranking Republican in the Republican-dominated Senate, said. "That would be the last thing I would think about doing."

At an elementary school in Hartford's mainly black North End today, the suit's namesake, Milo Sheff, a senior at Weaver High School who was in the fourth grade when the suit was filed in 1989, celebrated with his mother, other plaintiffs and civil-rights lawyers.

In April 1995, a trial judge's rejection of the Sheff case's arguments provoked angry protests in the city. The Supreme Court's reversal of the judge, and its passionate declaration that segregated schools violate the constitution, brought smiles amid calls for quick action.

"We are mindful of the urgency and the necessity and the desperation to help the children of the city of Hartford," said John Brittain, a lead lawyer on the case. "We stress the urgency of this action in formulating some legislative response."

Seeking to link Hartford's schools with those of its suburbs, even as Federal courts were refusing to order desegregation plans across district lines unless intentional discrimination was proved, Mr. Brittain and other lawyers based their case on Connecticut's Constitution.

The extreme concentration of poorchildren in Hartford's schools, 94 percent of them from minority groups, deprived them of the equal educational opportunity guaranteed by the constitution, they argued, even though generous state aid permitted the city to spend more per pupil than nearly all of its suburbs.

As evidence of the harm, the Sheff lawyers cited the ranking of Hartford children on the state's standardized tests. They are last.

The state acknowledged the racial imbalance, but said it had occurred because of demographic changes, despite efforts to counter it. The schools were doing an adequate job, experts testified. They said the low test scores reflected the poverty and social problems of the students.

In the decision today, written by Chief Justice Ellen Ash Peters, the majority agreed with the state's experts that the academic performance of Hartford children resuted largely from poverty, but said that did not matter. The racial segregation was itself harmful and unconstitutional, they wrote.

"We conclude that the existence of extreme racial and ethnic isolation in the public school system deprives schoolchildren of a substantially equal educational opportunity and requires the state to take further remedial measures," Justice Peters wrote.

The main cause of the segregation, the majority concluded, was the basing of school districts on town boundaries, which allowed the movement of middle-class families to suburbia in the 1950's and 60's, leaving poor minority groups behind.

But Justice Robert J. Callahan, who will succeed Justice Peters as Chief Justice on Sept. 1, and Justice Richard N. Palmer joined in a sharp dissent by Justice David M. Borden. It accused the majority of inventing a theory of law to fit the conclusion that it wanted to reach.

"The necessary implication of the majority's reasoning," Justice Borden wrote, "is that virtually every school district in the state is now either unconstitutional or constitutionally suspect. Without explicitly saying so, the majority has effectively struck down, not just for the greater Hartford area but for the entire state, the municipality-based school system that has been in effect in this state since 1909."

David Armor, a professor at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., who testified for the state, said the ruling would probably prompt civil-rights lawyers to explore similar suits under other state constitutions with similar provisions. A suit has already been filed in Minneapolis.

"But we're talking about de facto segregation," he said, "the result of actions of individual people. If that's the case, the people can amend the Constitution and make it clear that de facto segregation is not unconstitutional. Maybe that's why the Supreme Court is putting it back in the legislature's lap."

Gary Orfield, a leading expert on desegregation who testified for the plaintiffs, said Connecticut could take several voluntary measures, such as allowing Hartford students to enroll in suburban schools, before dealing with district boundaries.

Photo: Elizabeth Horton-Sheff being hugged by her son, Milo, whilediscussing their court victory yesterday in a lawsuit that charged that racial segregation in Hartford schools is unconstitutional. (George Ruhe for The New York Times) (pg. B6)